|
Speaking of believing we were fighting the wrong side, the British kicked around the idea of attacking the USSR after World War 2 to force them to give up their new Central European vassal states. This would have to have involved teaming up with "up to 100,000 Wehrmacht soldiers," rather than disarming them. Since the bomb would have been invented very shortly after this began, that might have been interesting. The Merry Marauder posted:The authors are faculty at Utah, which makes it less of an absurd irrelevancy. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Apr 5, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:OK, yes, we are completely insane, but don't y'all have this? Ha! I knew you'd do that! Essentially, this party is a protest platform that draws most of it's potential voters from former socialist voters (it's estimated that the potential hard core of ultra-nationalist voters in Austria is only between 5-10%). The FPÖ's typical clientel are former workers (and small business owners) that are hit by restructuring measures, and also by the dissolvement of state owned business. They are threatened by the successive reduction of the welfare state, both developments a common factor in Europe as a whole. It's no accident that these parties flourished all over Europe at the same time. What's happening here is, that in the fight for ressources, the lower strata of our society turns against the people in the weakest position: Immigrants. The party also has no real base. They have next to no paying supporters and rely to get their money from state party support and *somewhere* For Austria it's a complex situation, as state owned business was also divided up in turfs between the 2 major political parties (which you could roughly divide in agriculture & burghers vs workers). Affiliation guaranteed certain benefits (we always reek of nepotism to Germans). So with the decline of this, the voter base for these 2 parties disintegrated steadily since the 80s - it goes hand in hand with the rise of the right. It's like people lost confidence in the efficacy of traditional politics (there are certain institutional mechanisms that handle the balance between capital and workers here, but I won't bore you with that. Note that it worked extremely well in the past) Ideologically, the FPÖ is essentially a socialist party, with weird contradicting currents of liberalism, social conservativism, nationalism, etc. Notably, they borrowed certain anti-government elements from the US discourse in the 80s and 90s, but these things found no base after the 2000s here (most likely because of the large number of scandals and obvious corruption when that party was running the government. And utter incompetence. Plus, we have no tradition of government-scepticism). It's more like an assembly of "ideas that sound good and get us elected by a bunch of uneducated idiots", than anything that would work. If you'd ask me, that party is a niche product that works, as long as they don't get into the government. I don't know how to tell you, but the worst fringe crackpots in this party come close to what would be considered a "normal" republican candidate in the US. As an interesting sidenote, the former leader of this party, Haider, had close affiliation to various dictators of the middle east, like Saddam Hussein and Ghaddafi who payed large sums to the party to lobby for their goals in Europe. The same thing happened recently when Russia annexed Crimea. Guess who observed the referendum there? Maybe we should get back to discussing stuff that goes boom. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
Azran posted:The only book I personally own on the subject is Signals of War by Lawrence Freedman and Virginia Gamba, written in 1987. Azran posted:
Briefly, in Argentina at least, there is a clear discourse which you have to keep to (at least as far as politics go). Any questioning (i.e. not denial, but even merely positive questioning to examine one's own position) is de-facto prohibited. It's cheap nationalism and as far as the everyday discourse goes it is little more than a political smokescreen. Proper discussion of the war in Argentina will inevitably bring up social and political issues during the proceso, and that is still very uncomfortable to many people. It also brings up some uncomfortable comparisons in regards to the political discourse of some major parties (at least if you ask me). In my opinion, the most interesting thing is how the conflict as a whole legitimized and entirely justified on the behalf of the Argentine nation (and in some cases even with Pan-Latino, anti-imperialist language). However, the action of the military government is illegitimate due to its obviously undemocratic and brutal rule, which strips it of any justification. Likewise, war is also bad, and one should always aspire to use the democratic way, but the war as a whole is not condemmed in terms that the conflict itself is also just, as the territory is legitimately Argentine. I'll try to make more of an effortpost at a later time, and I'm really interested in what other people have to say about this. (Really enjoyed the Confederate lost-cause discussion by the way, good posts)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 10:27
|
|
I picked it up mostly out of interest due to the author dynamic, maybe I should give it a read.
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:(Really enjoyed the Confederate lost-cause discussion by the way, good posts)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Hush, or you'll summon FPÖ goon Riso to the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Don't be mean to poor Riso. It's hard to be a unicorn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hush, or you'll summon FPÖ goon Riso to the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
We even had a Nazi for a while. Emden, if I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:We even had a Nazi for a while. Emden, if I remember right.  ("Dinner At Home." Top caption: "Above all, let's not bring up the Dreyfus Affair." Bottom Caption: "They discussed it.")
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Emden wasn't trolling he was just the reincarnation of Otto Strasser.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
I've heard from some sources that the Imperial Japanese Navy was nothing more than a "paper tiger". That had they not sucker punched the US at Pearl Harbor they wouldn't have been able to face our industrial might. -Coral Sea was a 'stalemate' but Japan couldn't really make up the losses in airmen suffered. It could be argued that it was the beginning of the end. -Midway wiped out the majority of Japan's carrier air force. From then on, they were forced to fight on the defensive, and as time passed, their air corps did worse and worse. -Kamikaze tactics were more a product of desperation than anything. They figured if a Dive Bomber/Torpedo Bomber couldn't reliably get through to score a hit, why not just crash directly into the ship itself? But even this didn't really do much of a difference. -The only reason the war in the Pacific dragged on as long as it did was Japan's fatalistic attitude; had they continued conventional tactics they would have surrendered/retreated rather than die; and capitulate rather than get nuked. In most cases early on Japan's army/navy were fighting colonial or local forces unable to deal with the numbers/technology of Japan's forces, but once faced with a decent adversary they seem to have folded at every turn. Were there any islands or fortresses re-taken by IJN forces during WWII? After Midway it was the beginning of the end for them; man for man, plane for plane, ship for ship they were inferior to the USN; they were fighting the Russo-American war in 1941 with predicable results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Pearl Harbor wasn't even that good of a sucker punch. Nagumo destroyed planes that were easily replaced, didn't destroy the infrastructure/repair facilities of the base and sunk old ships in such shallow water that most of them were eventually refloated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I've heard from some sources that the Imperial Japanese Navy was nothing more than a "paper tiger". That had they not sucker punched the US at Pearl Harbor they wouldn't have been able to face our industrial might. I know you weren't asking for book recommendations, but I highly suggest reading Shattered Sword. Its focus is Midway, but it does a great job explaining what the IJN did right and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Pearl Harbor wasn't even that good of a sucker punch. Nagumo destroyed planes that were easily replaced, didn't destroy the infrastructure/repair facilities of the base and sunk old ships in such shallow water that most of them were eventually refloated. What's actually sort of funny is that Japan might have done better if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. Given the disparate skill level between the USN and the IJN in late 1941, it's entirely possible that an intact US Pacific Fleet would have sailed to defend the Philippines in the event of a war declaration and gotten its poo poo kicked in by the IJN in the decisive battle that the IJN had so desperately wanted, which may have even led to a negotiated peace. Instead, the remains of the US fleet didn't even attempt to save the Philippines, fought and wore down various elements of the IJN through the first half of '42, and wiped out the IJN's major striking force at Midway, all while chanting "Remember Pearl Harbor!" and refusing to negotiate. It's an interesting counterfactual, to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Keep in mind that even after Midway, the Allies got it done in the Pacific with a fairly limited carrier presence. The post-Midway period was still a very even fight. The numbers get ridiculous only starting in 1944, after the carriers come back in strength, though both sides tried to rebuild their carrier air arms. And this culminated in the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Land based airpower got the Allies through the second half of 1942 and into 1943.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I've heard from some sources that the Imperial Japanese Navy was nothing more than a "paper tiger". That had they not sucker punched the US at Pearl Harbor they wouldn't have been able to face our industrial might. The IJN command knew this themselves, which is why they decided on a sneak attack in the first place. It doesn't have anything to do with being a "paper tiger", which is something that looks fierce at a glance but doesn't actually have any power. Japan didn't have the industry to maintain a long war, but they weren't ineffectual, at least while they still had trained aircrew. quote:
Coral Sea saw 2 of 6 Japanese fleet carriers damaged and in need of repairs, the fact that they were put out of action probably constituted a larger aircrew loss than the casualties during the battle. Shokaku and Zuikaku were both intended to fight at Midway. quote:-Midway wiped out the majority of Japan's carrier air force. From then on, they were forced to fight on the defensive, and as time passed, their air corps did worse and worse. The way that Midway turned out (4 IJN carriers lost) was kind of a fluke. Shattered Sword goes into the battle in-depth, and if you read it, you can see how much blind luck was involved. Neither side expected such a lopsided battle, but the 4 Japanese carriers were literally irreplaceable. I mean, it's a war, and poo poo happens, but if you wanted to assess the IJN's capacities, you'd need to use its pre-midway strength because anything later and they're short more than half of their aircrew because of a really goofy series of coincidences. There are reasons to argue for a different victory for either side, but the way things turned out in real life was simply extraordinary. quote:-Kamikaze tactics were more a product of desperation than anything. They figured if a Dive Bomber/Torpedo Bomber couldn't reliably get through to score a hit, why not just crash directly into the ship itself? But even this didn't really do much of a difference. The Kamikazes were a move borne out of desperation and insanity and they were a huge waste of lives (and aircraft). Japanese pilots were encouraged to try and aim for ships if they were going to crash, but that's a pretty common sentiment across the board. They weren't a part of the navy when they actually had trained pilots and carriers to land on. quote:-The only reason the war in the Pacific dragged on as long as it did was Japan's fatalistic attitude; had they continued conventional tactics they would have surrendered/retreated rather than die; and capitulate rather than get nuked. What is "conventional tactics"? What about not using "conventional tactics" made the Japanese military a paper tiger when what they did amounts to fighting tooth and nail and making every battle a bloody mess? quote:In most cases early on Japan's army/navy were fighting colonial or local forces unable to deal with the numbers/technology of Japan's forces, but once faced with a decent adversary they seem to have folded at every turn. Were there any islands or fortresses re-taken by IJN forces during WWII? After Midway it was the beginning of the end for them; man for man, plane for plane, ship for ship they were inferior to the USN; they were fighting the Russo-American war in 1941 with predicable results. Literally every problem that the Japanese empire had from 1942-45 stems from the simultaneous loss of 4 fleet carriers, their aircrew, their ship crew, and all the related equipment they had on board. The Pacific War is a strange one because you can easily point at Midway and say that the Japanese lost the war right then and there and nobody can really contest you. The problem with your assertion is that you're basically saying that this crippled military isn't winning anywhere, and so it's a paper tiger that was hyped up and never a danger at all. It's a little insulting to hear that because 2 million people died fighting for Imperial Japan, and according to you, "man for man" they were inferior to a red-blooded American, their only decent adversary. And at the same time, you discredit the thousands of Americans who rotted on lovely Pacific beaches fighting an inferior enemy who's only advantage was their willingness to die. I'm not vein-poppingly angry at you or anything, I'm just irked at the blase and superficial attitude towards a seriously deadly topic that people can adopt. You're saying that the Japanese were poo poo at war but stupid and stubborn enough to keep fighting, which is pretty much what the average American thought of them during WWII. And look where that lead us. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
The Japanese had the same problems as the Germans did, really. They didn't tend to rotate pilots back to train the new recruits and as the war turned more against them, they didn't even have the resources necessary for proper training.Raskolnikov38 posted:Pearl Harbor wasn't even that good of a sucker punch. Nagumo destroyed planes that were easily replaced, didn't destroy the infrastructure/repair facilities of the base and sunk old ships in such shallow water that most of them were eventually refloated. Most the planes that were lost were hopelessly obsolete anyways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:
It's similar to how the Germans destroyed thousands of planes on the ground in the opening days of Barbarossa but it kind of backfired in the end since they were just a bunch of obsolete poo poo boxes so the Russian pilots got better planes to fly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Pretty right on The other thing to remember is that Japan spent a good chunk of post-Midway fighting for a negotiated peace. WWII did some screwy things to war that even WWI (the War to end all wars) hadn't done. Namely, no one loving negotiated during WWII. Maybe it was the high stakes, maybe it was the crazy people at the top, but that sort of annihilatory, unconditional surrender war was pretty new, and honestly a development the (sane) Japanese leader didn't pick up until way late. (The insane ones were part of this phenomenon, but anyway...) The Japanese high command wasn't throwing away it's men to die futilely, at least in their minds. They were trying to make the whole endeavor costly and painful for the Allies, in the hopes that they'd throw up their hands, say 'gently caress it,' and let them keep some of what they'd won. Remember that, until Okinawa, Japan was still sitting in the positives category as far as territory gained. And even then, Okinawa was pretty peripheral to Japan. The plan was never to hit Pearl and then never face a threat from the US. The plan was to hit Pearl, say  and moon walk off with Java and the Philippines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Shattered Sword goes into the battle in-depth, and if you read it, you can see how much blind luck was involved. I can't remember if you were the one who previously recommended this book or someone else, but I took the advice and read through it and it was an absolutely fantastic read.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I can't remember if you were the one who previously recommended this book or someone else, but I took the advice and read through it and it was an absolutely fantastic read. No it wasn't me, but I got that book through the thread's recommendation as well. I wish I'd kept track of all the books that people have recommended, because they've been excellent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:Pretty sure he was trolling. I thought he was legit until he posted this cartoon: For someone new to the thread and not entirely up on old topics, what about this cartoon marked Emden as a troll or fascist? It feels like you could change a few words and have any thread on SA ("let's not bring up the F-35/Australian politics/tank destroyer doctrine").
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:For someone new to the thread and not entirely up on old topics, what about this cartoon marked Emden as a troll or fascist? It feels like you could change a few words and have any thread on SA ("let's not bring up the F-35/Australian politics/tank destroyer doctrine"). You misread, Hegel meant the opposite. She reckons the cartoon marked Emden as not really a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You misread, Hegel meant the opposite. She reckons the cartoon marked Emden as not really a fascist. Oh. Whoops.  ...I've still got half a mind to turn that into "A Dinner in [Thread of Choice Here]," though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You misread, Hegel meant the opposite. She reckons the cartoon marked Emden as not really a fascist. Davin Valkri posted:Oh. Whoops. Edit: It's literally the 19th century French version of this: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollbait-nobody-is-right HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Keep in mind that even after Midway, the Allies got it done in the Pacific with a fairly limited carrier presence. The post-Midway period was still a very even fight. The numbers get ridiculous only starting in 1944, after the carriers come back in strength, though both sides tried to rebuild their carrier air arms. And this culminated in the Marianas Turkey Shoot. For over a month near the end of 1942 the sole operational Allied carrier in the Pacific was a (damaged) Enterprise. Everything else was either sunk, in a repair yard, or still under construction. Also yes, you all should read Shattered Sword, it is beyond excellent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:What's actually sort of funny is that Japan might have done better if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. Given the disparate skill level between the USN and the IJN in late 1941, it's entirely possible that an intact US Pacific Fleet would have sailed to defend the Philippines in the event of a war declaration and gotten its poo poo kicked in by the IJN in the decisive battle that the IJN had so desperately wanted, which may have even led to a negotiated peace. Instead, the remains of the US fleet didn't even attempt to save the Philippines, fought and wore down various elements of the IJN through the first half of '42, and wiped out the IJN's major striking force at Midway, all while chanting "Remember Pearl Harbor!" and refusing to negotiate. It's an interesting counterfactual, to say the least. The counter-counter-factual is that it's either much more difficult to hit and sink a battleship out in the open ocean (the mistakes of Force Z notwithstanding) or that the Japanese were unable to deal decisive blows against USN carrier forces. Nthing the recommendation for Shattered Sword. It presents a sweeping and clarifying picture of the Japanese strategic situation in the run-up to Midway, how and why Midway was selected in the first place, and the ramifications of the outcome of the battle. I'm on my way out the door but I can put up an effort post on that if there's interest, though I am sure I would not be able to do the book justice and there's still a lot of fascinating material besides. The discussion of carrier ops alone was really enlightening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The counter-counter-factual is that it's either much more difficult to hit and sink a battleship out in the open ocean (the mistakes of Force Z notwithstanding) or that the Japanese were unable to deal decisive blows against USN carrier forces. Yeah it's been a while for me since I read it otherwise I'd do another spergpost. I'm more likely to do a detailed WWII battleship armor post though because that's fun research. Gotta say though, every time the Yorktown gets mentioned as being the only ones who are doing competent stuff like getting their squadrons together for a strike because they're the experienced carrier and it's just  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:No it wasn't me, but I got that book through the thread's recommendation as well. I wish I'd kept track of all the books that people have recommended, because they've been excellent. This thread really ought to have a recommended reading list in the first post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
quote:Literally every problem that the Japanese empire had from 1942-45 stems from the simultaneous loss of 4 fleet carriers, their aircrew, their ship crew, and all the related equipment they had on board. The Pacific War is a strange one because you can easily point at Midway and say that the Japanese lost the war right then and there and nobody can really contest you. Even if Japan had won the battle, captured Midway like they did Wake, they still would have lost. Midway would have just dragged out the war another 6 or 12 months. The Japanese Navy and Army had terrible logistics; I've heard a statistic that said more Japanese soldiers starved to death than were killed in battle. They were reliant on shipping for resupply just like the UK but were way too slow to replace their losses. American submarines themselves exacted a huge toll; even though submarines made up less than 1% of tonnage of warships the USN had, they sank 25% of tonnage of Japan's navy and merchant fleet. In theory, Japan's submarine fleet could have tried to do the same to us, but they were too busy trying to chase down our warships to bother. I've also heard Japan's naval code, Purple, was more easily cracked than Enigma. That the USN rushed to get 3 CVs out to Midway was because they strongly suspected it would get attacked. The IJN wasted a ton of ships, time and effort on a diversionary attack on the Aleutians and we didn't take the bait. I never said they were inferior 'man for man'. I meant that while they were a big fish in their own pond vs China and other colonial holdings, they weren't a match for the USN. Much of their experience leading up to the 1940s was against China, where they did very well but had a lopsided advantage. Once they were up against another industrialized nation, they crumpled. Tell me, did Japan ever re-capture any islands they initially captured and lost? Tinian? Phillipines? Wake? No, they captured them initially, the USN came and recaptured them (or bypassed them to wither on the vine without resupply) and over the next 3 years Japan's sphere steadily shrank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
The Pacific war really parallels the eastern front. The IJN of 1941 was better than the USN of 1941. Better prepared, more experienced pilots, better planes,etc. the German army destroyed the Russian army they set out to destroy. Russia built another army and then another and just kept coming. The USN build more ships, trained more pilots and just kept coming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
I seem to recall in the former Military History thread that the Japanese had about the same industrial output of Italy of the same time. Which was not exactly impressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Japanese soldiers starved because the US domination of the Pacific cut them off from resupply. Likewise, Japan never re-invaded places because they couldn't get their troops there. If you flip the result of Midway, instead it's Japan dominating the oceans until some time in 1944, while the US builds enough carriers to match them. Guadalcanal and those other landings never happen and instead it's Japan invading places that have been cut off. Long term, it's hard to see how Japan could have won the war, since they had no way to capture the US mainland. And long term wars tend to go to the side with the larger GNP. But it was hardly predetermined and by no means easy. Fake edit: The question of which code machine was easier to break is actually very interesting. Anybody here know enough to go into it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Japanese soldiers starved because the US domination of the Pacific cut them off from resupply. Likewise, Japan never re-invaded places because they couldn't get their troops there. If you flip the result of Midway, instead it's Japan dominating the oceans until some time in 1944, while the US builds enough carriers to match them. Guadalcanal and those other landings never happen and instead it's Japan invading places that have been cut off. Parity actually comes in the second half of 1943, with a year later the US gaining a 2:1 advantage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Japan certainly could have won the war; the question is "which war". Their initial strategic objectives were to control China (or at least a lot of China), Korea/Manchuria, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and as much of the East Indies as possible, endstate being they'd have a huge and largely self-sustaining empire that could rival the US, UK, or USSR for power in the Pacific. Pearl Harbor kind of undid this. They seriously underestimated how pissed the US would get; the war with the US was pretty much decided at that point. Had they instead just invaded the East Indies and Philippines, then sat and waited for a US/UK response they would have had a decent chance of success. The American population was still largely isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor, and they wouldn't have had much support for a campaign to defeat Japan had their aggression been limited only to far eastern targets. The US might have declared war in response to such an invasion, but would have been forced to send fleets all the way across the Pacific in order to do anything about it. The Japanese, had they won a decisive battle against such a fleet, then would have been in a strong position for a negotiated peace that'd let them keep their holdings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:Parity actually comes in the second half of 1943, with a year later the US gaining a 2:1 advantage. And that is assuming that the US follows the same ship building program they did in reality rather than adapting to the loss of 3 carriers at Midway. The 4 Iowas may well have been converted to carriers, as could have the Alaskas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Had they instead just invaded the East Indies and Philippines, then sat and waited for a US/UK response they would have had a decent chance of success. The American population was still largely isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor, and they wouldn't have had much support for a campaign to defeat Japan had their aggression been limited only to far eastern targets. The US might have declared war in response to such an invasion, but would have been forced to send fleets all the way across the Pacific in order to do anything about it. The Japanese, had they won a decisive battle against such a fleet, then would have been in a strong position for a negotiated peace that'd let them keep their holdings. I'd agree with this. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor should be seen as a strategic mistake akin to that of Operation Barbarossa. It was a tactical coup that led to an overall defeat during the inevitable counterattack. Both were predicated on poor assumption that by defeating the standing military they would secure an overall victory - but while that might have been true if their own militaries were destroyed (it'd be difficult to see the Japanese Navy or the German Army recover after the kind of losses they inflicted at the outset) it certainly was not true for America and Russia. The relative scale of the countries involved simply wasn't understood at the strategic level by the Axis powers. Both Germany and Japan kept trying to create a decisive battle where their military acumen could fatally wound Allied resistance, but they underestimated how many decisive battles would be required to actually do that. You can also see this in other events that occurred: A great example would be when Japan attempted to attack the American timber supply by firebombing forests in Oregon; it was an action that might have made sense in the resource-restricted island of Japan, but could never have made a dent in the timber production of Oregon alone, much less the nation as a whole. The Japanese leadership simply couldn't internalize the relative difference in scale - the United States has more than 3,000x more forestry acreage than Japan (751.2 million acres to 245,000 acres). This kind of mismatch is pervasive in the comparison between Japan the United States - whether you're looking at industrial capacity and population, or merchant vessel tonnage and GDP. Even if Japan assumed that the United States would eventually get involved with the war and that American troops would start sailing East, Japan would have been much better off by keeping America out of the war as long as possible so as to secure control of the Asia-Pacific and begin building up their economic base. tangent edit: Speaking of only in Japan  :quote:Gundam Controversy Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:Parity actually comes in the second half of 1943, with a year later the US gaining a 2:1 advantage. That still gives Japan a year to play with, though the whole Midway operation shows they were out of good strategic ideas. Maybe they would have taken a crack at Hawaii, though that would have been a very difficult operation (to say the least). And yes, FDR would have been in a tough spot if they'd just gone for British and Dutch holdings in SE Asia without Pearl Harbor first. As was pointed out before, WWII is unusual in that nobody was willing to negotiate anything. Germany and Japan both fought on long after they had a hope of winning. Russia and the UK both had low points where they could have thought about going peace out. When you compare with the first World War, Russia signs a separate peace in 1917 and Germany surrendered while their armies were still in France.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Japanese soldiers starved because the US domination of the Pacific cut them off from resupply. Likewise, Japan never re-invaded places because they couldn't get their troops there. If you flip the result of Midway, instead it's Japan dominating the oceans until some time in 1944, while the US builds enough carriers to match them. Guadalcanal and those other landings never happen and instead it's Japan invading places that have been cut off. You might find the Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson amusing. It's a novel about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
BurningStone posted:As was pointed out before, WWII is unusual in that nobody was willing to negotiate anything. Germany and Japan both fought on long after they had a hope of winning. Russia and the UK both had low points where they could have thought about going peace out. When you compare with the first World War, Russia signs a separate peace in 1917 and Germany surrendered while their armies were still in France. Considering what happened to Russia and Germany afterwards, it's understandable that countries would fight to the end. By 1941 everyone was aware that whoever won the war would have power to shape the world as they saw fit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:55
|
|
